PDA

View Full Version : Don't be soft. Have a fight!



Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-04-2006, 15:00
One thing really bugs me in Warhammer.

One thing above a myriad of niggly little things. Just one. One idiotic rule that I feel can ruin an otherwise fun game of Warhammer.

Allocation of attacks.

I hate it. I hate it more than I hate Jimmy Carr. And thats a lot, when you consider I despise him more than I despise Chris Moyles.

I hate it because there is no honour in it at all. For instance, time was that if you wanted to kick my generals teeth in, you had to catch him on his own (well, on his Manticore) or...shock horror...issue a challenge to him in combat. Not any more. Now, not only can you hardnut have a pop at him, but he can bring some friends too!

And I LOATHE it. Whats wrong with a good, old fashioned challenge? Two turbo nutters seeking each other out in the midst of the melee, and duking it out until one is left broken and beaten in a pool of their own blood? Are you scared girly man? Think the skinny, mincing elf might slap you down in front of your mates?

I seriously hope that the ability to allocate attacks against specific models, and not just regiments is dropped for 7th Edition. It's not fun. Not fun at all! And if not, how about some kind of negative Combat Resolution for refused challenges? After all, your general has just shown himself to be a big girls blouse!

Bingo the Fun Monkey
24-04-2006, 15:05
EDIT: I was very drunk. I take back my comments. Sorry for a wasted post.

Tastyfish
24-04-2006, 15:16
I'm confused, surely the good old fashioned challenge is when one character issues a challenge to another one?
Are you saying that you would prefer characters hung around on their own a bit more, trouble comes when there is a vast difference between how good characters are. Given that the general is supposed to represent me, there is no way Sirhael Malenti is going to wander around on his own seeing if there are any chaos lords or blood dragons who are feeling lonely.

If you are worried about a characters mates beating you up, issue a challenge, but then I guess we tend to play that all attacks are allocated to the rank and file troopers unless a challenge is issued (not technically a house rule, just a convention). Its just a lot easier to rack up CR by killing off goons than trying to crack some paranoid druchii's many layers of magical defense (I feel almost naked now without having at least three different saves). However the counter to this is to challenge the axe wielding madmen to take on your invunerable lord and spare the needless slaughter of your men.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-04-2006, 15:25
Was it not a major part of Warhammer before? Two mighty heroes seeking each other out on the board, and then having of a bit of a clash of the Titans.

I appreciate that it can make for some very uneven match ups, but then, tough! Perhaps if you'd spent a little more points on punchy characters rather than on those bumbling Nancy boys to fling spells around, my Highborn might have had some sport!

And the trouble is, certain armies *really* benefit from this rule. For example? Bretonnians and Mortal Chaos. Sure. Those Dark Elf Spearmen aren't a horrific threat on their own. Their combat res is, but not the Spears. However. That Noble with the Draich of Dark Power. Killing Blow? S6? At HIS initiative? Eeep! Tell you what, we'll nobble him first, then deal with the rest of them. Quel Surpris, the Noble bites the dust without ever getting a blow in, followed by the rapid collapsing of my flank.

I DO NOT SHELL OUT FOR HEROES JUST SO THEY CAN SUFFER AN IGNOBLE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF A COWARDLY PLAYER. If you want to take him out, you should have to challenge.

Conversely, other armies just don't do well from it all. Ever seen a Gobbo or Skeleton trying to back someone up in a fight? It's comical!

Essentially, bring back challenges as the predominant method of disposing of nasty characters.

I appreciate the old system was quite harsh. I would issue a challenge to a specific model. Usually a squishy wizard. That model and that model only could answer, or refuse, and move to the rear ranks until combat was resolved. So, how to even things out a bit?

I issue a challenge to your unit. If the fightiest character accepts (probably go on Weapon skill) then all is well, and you continue as normal. If you answer with anyone else, you get -1 Combat Resolution for being a big girls blouse and not taking it like a man. Or even, your character cannot count his combat res score. Which is probably a bit much!

TeddyC
24-04-2006, 16:09
MDG MDG!

I agree

The player can say to me.... 'my blood dragon is gonna have you' and ill quite happily have a one on one full on battle to the death....

If you want that sort of battle... play with opponents that will give you it...

My regualr opponent is quite happy to charge his Bret lord out of the unit of knights to meet any general in one on one (while he cries FOR THE LADY)

Im with you... it is massive part of the game... but if those weedy grot and skaven generals wanna hide behind magic and units then let em....

If someone general is a level 4 mage... you wont find me playing them if i have any other option

Killgore
24-04-2006, 16:12
I liked your idea about a negative to the combat modifiers for a Cowardly hero refusing a challenge, I love issuing them, its great fun

Finnblood
24-04-2006, 16:22
For some reason I can't see my grey seer or my bray shaman or my future chaos dwarf sorcerer challenging anything bigger than a lone goblin trooper. Propably not even that...

Razhem
24-04-2006, 16:30
The whole point of that rule is to take out anoying characters with rank and file (MAGIC USERS, because of their crummy stats and that they tend to not have any protection), where I played, we always directed an attack to the unit champion of a unit and if there was a mage in a unit, god knows weīd kick it to death with our infantry (slaping a wizard with 6 spears usually feels nice). I normally donīt bother doing any attacks on a fighty character unless I have a good reason to do it (batle banner that can screw me, very lightly protected, I have killing blow and such) or am in a chalenge, tends to be more useful to take down rank and file. Has for the negative combat resolution for not going into a challenge, I think itīs ********, an elector count can never match up to a Vampire count or a chaos lord, it would only give a senseless advantage to herohammer characters, this is the edition where regiments fight and win battles, not a bunch of battle hungry ****** that forget their dutties has generals and helpers of their troops

Avian
24-04-2006, 16:31
I seriously hope that the ability to allocate attacks against specific models, and not just regiments is dropped for 7th Edition.
Eh? So if you don't have an opposing character or champion, you can't attack a character who is in a unit? :eyebrows:

What is your reasoning behind that wierd idea? Some kind of force field? :rolleyes:

Mouldsta
24-04-2006, 16:41
The implementation of that rule would make wizards in units practically invunerable;

They're immune to normal shooting (as long as there's more than 5 models)

They get a 2+ ward against cannons etc (look out sir)

None of your rank and file would be able to allocate attacks on him

If you challenged then he would simply refuse - having your wizard stood at the back is hardly a great loss is it?


The only way then to remove wizards under that rule would be to run the entire unit down (or for them to be foolish enough to accept the challenge)

joshypoo
24-04-2006, 17:37
It feels really crummy to having your enemies rank and file direct all the attacks they can at your commander and essentially having their troops ignore yours. penalties for doing so come to mind but are way too cumbersome. Instead how about a 40kish rule of hit allocation, Heroes in the front rank can only be allocated attacks in a duel or if every if model in his regiments front rank have already been allocated one.

and gobbos should have no penalty if their heros siss out, they more than likely expected it.

Tastyfish
24-04-2006, 17:45
If you play campaigns I've heard a good rule, but not had a chance to experiment with it yet - basically if you are playing from a large theorectical army list (or using dice to determine how mnay casulties are permanant) you have it that characters can only be permantantly killed by other characters. Anything else and they just come back the next game.

Neknoh
24-04-2006, 17:49
There are ways of ignoring this!

Simply put your Druchii noble at the corner of the unit, he will loose none of his effectiveness, but your opponent will only get two attacks at him at a amximum rather than 3.

Also, this is why I prefer to use Assassins to guard my important units, give them Manbane, Rune of Khaine and Additional Handweapon, reveal the assassin when charged, butcher any models that can attack him and then have his skyhigh I protect the unit if it commes to a longer combat than 1 round.

You can also issue challenges remember? Besides, if you get the chance to make that 200 pts character unusable for a round (which might well result in your opponent not being able to win the combat) for the prise of a humble Druchii Noble, I'd take it.

There are also other ways, simply give him the Crimson Death, he's still as strong, costs less and doesn't have Killingblow... so what?

Dakkagor
24-04-2006, 18:28
Don't you suffer an overkill problem when unit champions answer challenges anyway IE: unit leader gets messily massacred, ever attack over adds to your combat resolution?

GranFarfar
24-04-2006, 18:33
I donīt see why you shoudnīt be albe to alocate attacks on characters. Really, I donīt.
This would make it impossible to kill characters in units(something which is already quite hard), unless you are matching him with one of your own.
Why make characters better, that is really not what they need.

And really, is a player a coward if he chooses to kill your character in any other way than in a challange?

There should be some risk in putting a character in a close combat, even if it isnīt another god of war close at hand, shouldnīt it?

And about the cons of refusing a challange, isnīt not having a fighter hero fighting punishment enough?

Razhem
24-04-2006, 19:05
If I have to choose to challenge Tirion with my chieftain or kill his horse with the chieftain and the unit and make him run, I will always choose the latter, war ainīt prety and less if your playing cowboy hero, so donīt expect me to not attack your character if I know I can take him down, and donīt expect me to accept a challenge unless I can win it or I can reduce the wounds you make with my characters resilience, and god forbid making mages more unkillable that they allready are. Everything has to be said, I play Skaven and Iīm the type that takes his characters for leadership and allowing the unit theyīre in to kill more (meaning I donīt toll up unless itīs a special ocassion or itīs my mages)

Gorbad Ironclaw
24-04-2006, 19:11
Yes, please make my mages unkillable... That would be a really good rule change. Because we all want to bring herohammer(or magichammer) back...

Something like this makes no sense at all, and I can't see anything but negative consequences from it. Making character invulnerable except to a few models on the table, and making it virtually impossible to mage hunt.

If you want to fight a challenge, then issue one! You can already do that. So if you want to have your character fight my character there are the tools for it. On the other hand, if I don't want to have my meek mage cut up by your vampire lord, I got the option to refuse.

I can't see a single reason to institute such a rule. It doesn't make sense from a realism or background perspective, and it certainly doesn't make sense from a rules perspective.

zak
24-04-2006, 19:31
I really don't see the point that your getting at here. If someone wants to target my General or Hero rather than the foot sloggers then fine. They usually need a higher score to hit, higher score to wound and I have a better save against their hits. In the meantime my boys are busy slicing them up. WIN-WIN situation for me!
I play regularly against Undead and the player has learned not to put his Necromancers alone in the units or in the units at all. Why would my troops hit the skellies when I can solve the problem by killing the guy creating them.
I haven't seen a single argument so far to make see why this rule needs changing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-04-2006, 19:37
Put it this way. If I wanted my characters teeth smashed in, he'd be position out in front of my troops with a big sign saying 'Get It Here'.

If you want to take my character down, then you should challenge. It's gentlemanly. It's honourable. Having a bunch of Knights miraculously trample him and *nobody else* in the regiment is lame. Lame in the extreme.

TzarNikolai
24-04-2006, 19:56
Don't you suffer an overkill problem when unit champions answer challenges anyway IE: unit leader gets messily massacred, ever attack over adds to your combat resolution?

he has the same stats as the unit, so the overkill wounds would have been taken on the unit anyway. if you lose the champion this way then the rest of the unit is still there to provide outnumber and ranks for this and next rounds: acceptng a challenge with a champion is sometimes a good idea

BloodiedSword
24-04-2006, 20:12
In other words, the CR result is the same but you don't lose the models. Well worth it for the cost of a champion.

I don't really have a problem with allocating attacks - in fact, one of the nice things is that it's still in Fantasy, whereas it has been phased out of 40k. If anything, I actually like it.

First, your opponent can only put attacks on you from models in base contact, so it's not that bad already. If your hero kills everyone in base contact with him, no attacks can be allocated to him.

Secondly, if you give your hero heavy armour and out, then you shouldn't expect him to be indestrucible just because you put him in a unit. And if you've packed him up in armour, then you should be glad your opponent is wasting attacks that will almost certainly bounce off, instead of adding CR and causing wounds on your rank and file.

As for a fluff point of view, heroes in Fantasy are very distinct and proud - they are very hard to miss, even in a unit. It's just a case of a soldier going "oh crap, I'm fighting their head honcho dude!" (frantically wave spear in his direction and pray, as the threat of the rank and file becomes insignificant compared to scary guy). Not, as you are trying to make it out, a whole unit systematically bearing down on one guy.

EDIT: In addition, if one side has a hero and the other doesn't, then I find it a pretty stupid image that the foot soldiers on the hero-less side are just going to focus entirely on the enemy footsoldiers, ignoring the big shiny guy as he casually walks through them chopping people down left right and centre. The only time I can see them going out of their way not to hurt him is in a challenge, and that's exactly how it is.

Plus, both players can issue challenges so there you have an easy way to protect heroes immediately if you're that afraid of them being battered by RNF.

GrandReaper
24-04-2006, 20:22
Personally, I have to agree that this idea makes no sense. You (Grotsnik) keep referring to things like honour, but on the field of battle honour often comes as an afterthought to survival and victory (there are exceptions, such at Blood Dragons, Bretonnians, etc). I don't think honour has any role at all for Lizardmen, Skaven, Gobbos or even Ogres. Furthermore, honour varies from culture to culture, and I'm sure that high elf considers survival more honourable than dying for no purpose.

As for your character getting killed by R&F, that is a tactical error on your part. If your character is tooled for character killing, picks a fight with a dangerous infantry unit (pikes, HE spears, grave guard, etc) and has neither the attacks to protect himself OR the armour to survive then "sucks to your asthmar" (Lord of the Flies). Pick different fights, don't change a perfectly balanced rule.

Finally, units do suffer if a character refuses a challenge. The character cannot attack this round and the unit cannot use his leadership.

GranFarfar
24-04-2006, 21:19
Put it this way. If I wanted my characters teeth smashed in, he'd be position out in front of my troops with a big sign saying 'Get It Here'.

If you want to take my character down, then you should challenge. It's gentlemanly. It's honourable. Having a bunch of Knights miraculously trample him and *nobody else* in the regiment is lame. Lame in the extreme.

I am gonna take it, with what you said earlier in mind, that this knight problem is mainly due to the brets, right?
I donīt remeber the allocation rules of the lance all to well, since it was a time I fielded brets myself - but it is something with the knights in the second and third row not beeing able to allocate attacks, but has to attack what is right infront of them.
Otherwise - donīt you protect your characters? With a ward save it is next to impossible for the knighs to kill him, this even if it is grail knights.
Second - if it is brets. Offer a chalange of your own, if he values his blessing, he will accept.

Otherwise I guess only Chaos chosen knights has a chance of killing a character quickly - but those guys are lesser heros in themself.

Explain why it is lame to kill a character outside of a challange. If you just donīt like it, I will accept it as your oppinion. But if you are trying to preach it as unfair rulewise, I would like to see some arguments.

Trunks
24-04-2006, 21:28
EDIT: In addition, if one side has a hero and the other doesn't, then I find it a pretty stupid image that the foot soldiers on the hero-less side are just going to focus entirely on the enemy footsoldiers, ignoring the big shiny guy as he casually walks through them chopping people down left right and centre. The only time I can see them going out of their way not to hurt him is in a challenge, and that's exactly how it is.

This is exactly how a hero can be created. Nearly every hero was a scrub fighting with all of the normal rank and file at one time. After many battles he worked his way up and increased his skill. People were amazed that "a lowly swordsman" killed that "crazy high elf swordmaster". Ever hear of people using the phrase "trying to be a hero"? That's what those rank and file are doing.

I am completely against the idea of getting rid of allocation. The "gentlemanly honorable" argument is complete garbage with many armies. My dark elves could care less about honor, if they can take out the enemy hero with a quick stab to the back of the neck while he is distracted, they are going to do it. The same could be said of many of the "evil" armies, as well as a number of the "good" armies (Wood Elves could probably care less about it, Empire characters are probably going to take down the enemy in any manner they can possibly use as would many Dogs of War generals). On the other hand, Blood dragons care alot about this honor, so they have a special rule that forces them to challenge when they can. Bretonnians should probably have a similar rule but don't as far as I know.

There is no need to impose a penalty on Combat Resolution for refusing challenges except in the case of truely honor bound people (Bretonnians and Blood Dragons). There is already the penalty of losing out on 3-5 good attacks for refusing the challenge (unless it was a wizard), which equates to losing CR points anyway. If my Dark Elf Noble (usually my general in 2000 point games) is challenged by a big scary chaos lord and knows he is going to get slaughtered, he is definately not going to answer some challenge against him. Neither would an Empire Elector Count or alot of other characters.

Getting rid of allocation of attacks also makes magic way more powerful, which is something we hardly need.

Sorry, but this idea is absolutely terrible. I don't even see how it is a big issue to begin with. If you are worried about this, put the hero on the end of a unit, where only two models are going to be fighting him in most cases anyway (unless the enemy has a wider frontage).

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-04-2006, 21:29
The trouble is, I issue a challenge, he sends out a complete Wuss (unit Champion) to answer it, thus pretty much negating much of the point of sticking my Hardnut in the unit (to counter other characters.)

You see the problem? If I challenge, his Character mashes up my unit (which precisely what my character was meant to counter in the first place!). If not, the charge hits home, and my character gets beaten to a jelly before I can do anything about it.

Characters are put into regiments to boost their chances of winning combats. I tend to plonk them in Core Regiments, as, in my opinion, my Elite stuff is nails enough as it is. Yet the enemy can simply pick on my character, which utterly defies the point of him being in there in the first place.

Last edition, I could declare a challenge against a specific character, who could then either accept or decline. In the days of Herohammer, that often meant the difference between victory and crushing defeat.

But now, you just send out your unit chamion who, quelle surprise gets mooshed in three seconds flat. Whoopee. I killed a unit champion! Meanwhile, your own Turbonutter massacres my unit, leading to my losing the combat. If I don't issue the challenge, then my character risks having the **** kicked out of him not only by your character, but by his flunkies! It's just not Cricket frankly!

It's probably more of a personal gripe I suppose, and certainly, I fully believe in charging in with a challenge. It's far more sporting!

GranFarfar
24-04-2006, 21:36
Bretonnians should probably have a similar rule but don't as far as I know.


They do loose blessing if they choose to refuse a challange. And have a virtue(of confidence) which forces the character to both accept and issue chalanges - this character is of course very deadly in challange.

Mad Doc, you do realise that you can do exactly the same to him, right? Hit his character with you RnF. I do admit that DE dosnīt really have the best character killers amongst their ranks, but it dosnīt change the fact that you have the option.
And you will still causs CR in the challange, giving you chance to hold, and then issue yet another challange.
And serioulsy, what is the point with champions if not to save both rnf and you own characters from you opponents? That extra attack isnīt really enough on its own.

joshypoo
24-04-2006, 21:51
i'm guessing grotsnik plays an army who's heroes have little chance in any challenge. I know HE heroes can be absurdly wimpy in challenges.

My main problem with allocating attacks arises from the battle standard bearer catching hell in any combat he's in. 3 saurus warriors are all it takes and the poor bugger is wormfood.

RGB
24-04-2006, 22:11
One guy I totally see as benefitting quite rightly from MDG's idea is the Kislevite Boyar. He's ridiculously useless due to attack allocation, as his 40-pt stubborn ability never gets to be used as he gets killed before it ever comes into effect.

Elannion
24-04-2006, 22:13
I can see what mad doc is saying, however i choose not to tool up my characters that much, they are there for me only to dish out a few more attacks and for their Ld and probably would be pants in a challenege just because i choose not to spend 75pts on magic items or whatever.

However in the days of old i did make it my mission to seek out my enemys general with my characters and it was indeed fun, i don't know if theres enough incentive now, i would like to see more of an incentive to killing them in chalenges but not nessisarily something that stops them being attacked.

I think the thing is people don't want to see their characters crushed for the sake of a chalenge, because often people like their generals and spend time converting or thinking about their storys and such. However i see what doc is saying and infact before the current lizardmen book i remember my unit of swarms taking on a high elf lord and his body guard and eventually killing them all which mustn't of been very fun and obviously isn't such a fitting death.

I think it would be nice to bring in some more valorous things since all the storys are filled with dramatic challenges and great heros, thats why i like warhammer roleplay you can act out these things and if you tackle things in a nice story way you get rewarded.

Out of interest, why don't you like Jimmy Carr :P

Neknoh
24-04-2006, 22:31
doc... you do realise that if the enemy gets the charge on you, his character WILL chop up your unit before you ever have a chance of countering said hero, don't you?

So, it's ONLY favourable to you to declare a challenge in round one, this will keep your character allive whilst brutally butchering his unit-champion, this in turn might lead to your unit sticking arround till next round of combat, in which you issue a new challenge, and this time, there is but one to accept it.

BloodiedSword
24-04-2006, 23:17
Mad Doc, I now see why you're annoyed about this, but I have 2 criticisms.

1. I don't think your problem is with attack allocation, but rather that your opponent chooses who can answer a challenge, thus preventing you from neutralising his killy hero.

Still, I am slightly confused - you refer to your hero as your "Hardnut", yet he dies to a maximum of 3 rank and file attacks? Which will very often be hitting on a 5+? I find this hard to believe. However, this follows on to..

2. Half the time, it will be you who is charging and he will be the one deciding whether to let your hero slaughter rank and file or challenge, and you who will be the one answering the challenge with the puny unit champion. Swings and roundabouts..

Either way, the image of it is quite nice - hero in defending unit calls out a challenge, hero in attacking unit takes one look at him and lets out a grunt of disgust before ushering out the unit champion to deal with one he considers unworthy of his own time.

Galadrin
25-04-2006, 02:13
Lol this idea is terrific! So your character is invincible as long as he is A) in a unit and B) the champion from the opposing unit is dead or was never included. Awesome, that really redefines the idea of meat shields!

You know what I think is fun? A unit of 40 Zombies with a Vampire Lord charging my big Tomb Guard unit and wiping out the Tomb Guard in two turns because none of them can attack the Vampire.

Anvilbrow
25-04-2006, 05:05
Sorry. I have to go with the crowd on this one for all the reasons already sated which I will not flog like a dead goblin. However, I do find a bit of merit in your idea that you can challenge a specific character and if he/she refuses, it has a game effect. Not something major mind you, but enough to at least make the opponent consider his hero growing a pair...

Perhaps a -1 to hit modifier for the unlucky sap who gets pushed in front of said Blood Dragon? Thinking outside the box. In my humble opinion, it would add some interest to the game and yet it shouldn't encourage Herohammer again.

Pravus
25-04-2006, 08:56
I see nothing wrong with the allocation of attacks and fighting in challenges as the rules currently stand. To me its simply the difference between a formal, gauntlet-to the face challenge and the chance meeting of warriors in the chaotic clash of unit melee. Allocation of attacks justs respresents the RnF goons coming across the enemy hero in battle and having a pop at him.

Of course, you could argue that a REAL hero would be able to dispatch a couple of minions with no bother - but then MDG, your character is a weedy toughness 3 elf isn't he? Probably smells a bit of cabbage too ... ;)

Adept
25-04-2006, 10:24
I DO NOT SHELL OUT FOR HEROES JUST SO THEY CAN SUFFER AN IGNOBLE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF A COWARDLY PLAYER. If you want to take him out, you should have to challenge.

Dry your eyes, princess.

If you want any character not substantially protected by armour/ward saves to survive getting charged by a choppy 'hammer' unit, then well, tough. Don't let it get charged in the first place.

It makes no sense. The Chosen of Khorne charge in, but aren't allowed to hit the character in the front rank?

"No lads, don't hit him! He's a VIP!"

The ability to issue a challenge is still there, and is as powerful and characterful as it needs to be.

Avian
25-04-2006, 10:48
However, I do find a bit of merit in your idea that you can challenge a specific character and if he/she refuses, it has a game effect. Not something major mind you, but enough to at least make the opponent consider his hero growing a pair...
For at least half the characters out there, that makes no sense at all.

Orc Big Boss (to Wood Elf Spellsinger): "Get your skinny butt over here so I can smack it with my great axe!"
Spellsinger: "Eeeek!"
Eternal Guard Champion: "Fear not, my lady, I shall protect you from this nasty brute!"
Orc Big Boss: "Not you, I want to fight her."
Eternal Guard Champion: "Oh, right, sorry. After you then, my lady."
*sound of carnage follows*


Most of the point of having a Champion is so you can avoid challenges your character does not want to get into.

samw
25-04-2006, 17:51
Also, why exactly shouldn't the Lord let the unit champ fight? For me I challenge a lot, usually because my bret unit champs can easily smush the opposing unit champs and stop them attacking back. However my two fighty characters are my super-tooled up lord and my BSB. I look at it this way. The BSB would of course love to accept, but dare not risk his lord's colours, and so lets the cavalier take his place. The Lord having already attained the Grail Vow and highest rank, allows the young knight to prove himself by fighting scary lord o' doom.

Besides in my Errantry list all my unit champs are grail knights, they outrank my paladins!

Chiron
25-04-2006, 17:55
i've no problem with RnF troops attacking my hero, what gets me is when a chaos lord and his chosen knights charge, allocate most attacks on to an elector count and have the horses and the couple of knights not able to attack the leader take out a bunch of RnF troops

not a lot you can do to defend yourself from that

samw
25-04-2006, 17:57
i've no problem with RnF troops attacking my hero, what gets me is when a chaos lord and his chosen knights charge, allocate most attacks on to an elector count and have the horses and the couple of knights not able to attack the leader take out a bunch of RnF troops

not a lot you can do to defend yourself from that

Grab van horstman's specalum, you improve your stats even if the unit champ accepts!

Chiron
25-04-2006, 18:03
true but that still leaves the ec vulnerable to a single strike back at strength 6 and another at strike 4 while making it very unlikely the unit can do any damage to the knights

besides... i like giving van horstmans to a lvl1 shadow wizard with steed of shadows ;)

Anvilbrow
26-04-2006, 05:38
For at least half the characters out there, that makes no sense at all.

Orc Big Boss (to Wood Elf Spellsinger): "Get your skinny butt over here so I can smack it with my great axe!"
Spellsinger: "Eeeek!"
Eternal Guard Champion: "Fear not, my lady, I shall protect you from this nasty brute!"
Orc Big Boss: "Not you, I want to fight her."
Eternal Guard Champion: "Oh, right, sorry. After you then, my lady."
*sound of carnage follows*


Most of the point of having a Champion is so you can avoid challenges your character does not want to get into.

I'm just trying to think outside the box. Note in my original post I said I agree that as they stand, the rules are pretty good. I completely understand why champions make sense in game terms. For "fluffy" reasons however, it might make things interesting. Granted, for any mage (Tzeentch-marked and Vamps excepted) it would be staring into the face of death. Why not let mages do what they do best? Challenge me? Fine, but I cast magic at you in the challenge. Before you tear that apart, I know that wouldn't work well in a number of situations (most likely), but I'm writing stream of consciousness.

Avian
26-04-2006, 10:43
i've no problem with RnF troops attacking my hero, what gets me is when a chaos lord and his chosen knights charge, allocate most attacks on to an elector count and have the horses and the couple of knights not able to attack the leader take out a bunch of RnF troops

not a lot you can do to defend yourself from that
Why don't you challenge with the Elector Count?

Trunks
26-04-2006, 19:07
I don't know the Empire list too well, but isn't the Elector Count a Lord level character? Shouldn't he be able to take a decent amount of defensive gear if your issue is that he can't survive?

BloodiedSword
26-04-2006, 19:28
Well, with the Armour of Meteoric Iron, Dawn Armour, White Cloak, Holy Relic and the lethal Van Horstman's Speculum at his disposal, there's nothing to stop Empire characters from tooling up to be defensive.

Sure, they are only T4, but this is worked into their pricing and also the pricing of their magic items.